Mita Pogue Spoiler Alert: This is a bad movie. I'm not sure if that qualifies as an actual spoiler, but trust me. Your day will be spoiled if you sit through this movie. But I'm sure somewhere below I will reveal plot stuff that can be construed as spoilers.I've really been a fan of Sandra Bullock for a long time. She funny, adorable, and really a very good actress. I've never really seen her in a bad movie. Until now.I'm not going to blame her. It's not her fault. I suppose an aspiring actress needs something to do to make money or break into the acting business. But apparently it didn't hurt her career, so… whatever.On the whole, the acting was not just sub par. It was abysmal. Maybe some of the blame for that can rest with the direction/production, but not all. Sandra was the best one, and she was pretty green. Still, nothing can make up for the torture I was put through while trying to find something - anything - redeeming about this movie. I was utterly unsuccessful. Everything is gratuitous, from the absolutely unnecessary amount of dead bodies (with absolutely NO police interference whatsoever - right in the middle of the day in public buildings, no less) The foul language is also not only gratuitous and forced, but since the acting is so horrid it's all foul anyway. The head honcho over all the assassinations apparently loves giving orders over the phone, because he was on the phone more than a teenage girl. The editing is awful - you can tell where all the voice overs are. In one scene where Danny is riding in the car with "Dog" (or whatever his name was), all the background noise of driving, gravel, or city noise nearly disappears and the dialog is inserted at a different volume and you can hear the volume go in and out each time it's inserted. In each scene throughout the movie, the volume is high then low then high again… which didn't help the dialog because it was already bad, and after a while I started feeling lucky when it was low.I must confess, I couldn't finish the movie. I tried. I really did. But after about an hour I just didn't think I could take it anymore. Although I don't recommend anyone watch this for any actual pleasure, I do highly recommend it for breaking the will of our enemies.

sawatzky-829-14303 I can understand the disappointment of those who bought this movie for the picture of Sandra Bullock on the cover. I looked at the date of the movie and had to think back to what I was doing that year...1987... definitely no Sandra Bullock on the radar yet. That picture was just to depict a pretty girl and innocent bystander in the movie. I think back in the day this movie would have been accepted for the corny schlock it really was, a genre that has evolved to give us Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4.You realize that this is going to be corn, not serious drama the moment the opening political assassination begins. Instead of a sniper on a roof, they use machine guns in the halls. As the opening credits roll you are treated to further clues that this movie means to be bad - instead of a gun with a sniper scope, they show a gun with a 1000mm "catadioptric" camera lens stuck to the top of the gun (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catadioptric_system if you want to see just how ridiculous this is). That's not subtle schlock, that is full blown in-your-face meant-to-be-bad corn. I give this movie full marks for doing what it set out to do, and minus a few points for poor marketing and plot. Even Scary Movie 1,2,3 & 4 had good plots.

rayliner_free I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.

mule-16 I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."Danny - "I don't know." Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?" Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad." Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?" Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something." Lisa - "Why am I here?" Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know." (moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . " Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"See what I mean? Bottom line - Just say no.